Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Ureteral Stones: Do Decompression Tubes Matter?

Middela, Seshikanth; Papadopoulos, Georgios; Srirangam, Shalom J.; Rao, P. N.

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2010.01.051

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We found the gender distribution of patients resembles the earlier reports (Wilkinson, 2001;Singh et al, 2010). The mean age of patients was 44.28±14.13 years which also testif ied elsewhere (Wilkinson, 2001;Middela et al, 2010). In our study, the number of patients with stones located in the lower part of the ureter who underwent SWL was approximately similar to those with proximal urolithiasis.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 77%

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for the treatment of ureteral stones : a Critique on Success rate

Barzegarnezhad¹,

Kerigh²,

Azizi³

2016

AMBIENT SCIENCE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In nowadays Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) is one of the most accepted and minimally invasive therapeutic options for the treatment of urinary stones. Unfortunately, till date, only a handful studies have regarded the extrusion rate of stones located in the middle and lower part of the ureter via SWL. We evaluated the success rate of this procedure in the treatment of ureteral calculi by conducting a descriptive study carried out through the analysis of the f iles and radiographs of 191 patients with urolithiasis who underwent lithotripsy.. Success rates were recorded on the basis of the location of stones which were as follows: 89.4% with urolithiasis in the upper part of the ureter responded to one session of lithotripsy. The success rate in those with calculi located in the middle and the lower part of the ureter was 90.9% and 88.1%, respectively. Gross hematuria and pyelonephritis were observed in 90.05% and 2.61% of patients, respectively. AbstractIntroduction:

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 77%

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for the treatment of ureteral stones : a Critique on Success rate

Barzegarnezhad¹,

Kerigh²,

Azizi³

2016

AMBIENT SCIENCE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in that large retrospective study, only 19.3% of the patients had been stented before treatment. Similarly, when compared with the study by Middela et al, no significant difference was found between the outcome for patients with stones treated by ESWL irrespective of presence of a stent 5 ,but in that series multiple sessions were needed in most cases (52% with two sessions, 30% with more than three).…”

Section: Discussion:-mentioning

confidence: 74%

The Effect of Double J Stent on the Efficacy of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Ureteral Stones.

VenugopalA¹,

KV²,

VS³

et al. 2018

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:To evaluate the effect of double J stent on the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteral stones. Patients and methods: Open labelled prospective audit of patients with solitary ureteric calculi receiving ESWL in a single centre was performed during May 2015 to July 2017.The study group consisted of 176 ureteric stone patients who were treated with ESWL. In 68 cases, treatment was preceded by ureteric stent insertion. Success was defined as complete stone clearance in post procedure X ray KUB imaging after 2 weeks. Demographic data of patients and stone characteristics were correlated with ESWL outcome. Logistic regression analysis was applied to evaluate the hypothesis of an interaction between stone size and the presence of a D J stent. Results: The mean age of patients were 39.68 years (range 21-68), 70.45 % (124 /176) of patients were males. Mean stone size was 13.2 mm. The overall success rate with ESWL is 68.18%. Treatment was more effective for smaller (p = 0.162) and more proximally located stones (p = 0.025). A DJ stent in situ at the time of ESWL reduced the success rate for stones with size more than10 mm (p = 0.032). Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that the presence of double J stent reduces the success rate of ESWL treatment when the stone size is more than 10 mm in size.Copy Right, IJAR, 2018,. All rights reserved. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………....Introduction:-Urolithiasis is a major clinical and economic burden for health care systems. It is estimated that up to 13% of men and 7% of women develop urolithiasis in their lifetime 1 . Several prognostic factors determining the success of ESWL treatment of ureteric stones have been studied. These include the stone site, size, crystal type, degree of obstruction, stone impaction and function of the renal unit

show abstract

“…Middela et al [10] compared 3 patient groups with a percutaneous nephrostomy, a JJ stent, and without the stent, and found no difference in these treatments methods in how they affected stone clearance after SWL treatment for ureteral calculi. Mustafa and Ali-El-Dein [11] evaluated 38 patients and reported no effect of JJ catheters in the passage of stone fragments or the reduction of complications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do JJ Stents Increase the Effectiveness of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Pediatric Renal Stones?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the effects of preoperative urinary catheterization in nephrolithiasis treatment with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Methods: Patients admitted to the Department of Pediatric Surgery for renal stones between June 2012 and June 2014 were evaluated retrospectively. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on JJ stent placements. Group 1 did not receive JJ stents, while group 2 did. The recorded demographic data for each group included age, gender, stone size, location, sessions, and complications. The Elmed Complit ESWL system was used with 11-13 kV, and 1,000-1,200 shots in patients 2-4 years of age, and 11-14 kV, and 1,000-1,500 shots for patients over 4 years. Results: In group 1, 18 sessions of SWL were performed on 8 female and 2 male children with a mean age of 4.5 (range 2-12) years and stone diameter of 9 (range 7-15) mm. The locations of the renal stones were in the upper pole in 1 patient, 7 in the lower pole, and 2 in the pelvis renalis. Postoperatively, 1 patient had hematuria, 2 had dysuria, and one had a stone in the external urethral meatus. Eighty percent of patients were stone free; there were no fragmentations in 2 patients, and 1 patient discontinued treatment. In group 2, 15 SWL sessions were performed on 5 female and 5 male children aged 4 (range 3-5) and the stone diameter was 9 (range 7-16) mm. The locations of the renal stones were in the upper pole in 6 patients, in the lower pole in 3 patients, and in the ureteropelvic junction in one patient. JJ stents were placed in all patients preoperatively. Postoperatively, 3 patients had hematuria and one had dysuria. At the end of the study, all of the patients were stone free. Statistically, there were no differences in age, gender, stone size, location, and the number of sessions. Conclusions: Our results indicate that SWL without preoperative ureteral stenting is an effective and safe procedure that can be carried out in the pediatric population. Preoperative JJ stenting is unnecessary in patients, especially in those with smaller stone diameters.

show abstract

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Ureteral Stones: Do Decompression Tubes Matter?

Cited by 15 publications

References 20 publications

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for the treatment of ureteral stones : a Critique on Success rate

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for the treatment of ureteral stones : a Critique on Success rate

The Effect of Double J Stent on the Efficacy of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Ureteral Stones.

Do JJ Stents Increase the Effectiveness of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Pediatric Renal Stones?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About